I was impressed by Ron’s observation that defending individual property would have been a more effective approach to combating pollution than making federal environmental safety laws. This may be a simplistic notion, but Ron does at least think outside the box. (They say Newt is “smart” too, but that was last week).

He also said he would save $1 trillion a year. That was a major promise, and if you’re focused on the economy, it carries a lot of weight. A promise that just might win an election on its own.

On the Constitution, he knows the original document well and basically understands states’ rights.

On the other hand, what he said on seat belt laws, narcotics laws and gay marriage made me cringe.

Here is what I heard:

Seat belt laws are bad because they rob the individual of freedom.

Partly true. But if there were no seatbelt laws, the insurance companies would have to insure the idiots who don’t use them at the same cost as the smart people who do. No one would say to their insurance agent, when asked: Nah, I don’t believe in seat belts.

Insurance rates would have to go up because there would be many more people injured and killed in accidents. That would affect us all. This is libertarianism gone amok. On the other hand, would these deleterious effects be anywhere near as significant as the effects of not stopping the runaway spending by government? And Ron promises to do that.

Narcotics. Ron thinks we should all have the right to use drugs that may cause us to harm ourselves. Unfortunately, when people fall into drug use, they do things that hurt not only themselves but others and they cost agencies like the police and social assistance and charitable agencies a whole lot of money – for example, when users, especially addicts, steal to get drug money, or perpetrate violence due to a state of stupefaction and a subduing of conscience. I had shown that the libertarian take on drug use legalization is nothing but pure propaganda:

Ron is wrong on this issue. But again, could drug use cost more than the current runaway spending by government? Maybe not.

Gay marriage? He didn’t use the word, but we all know what part of the interview that was and we heard him say he was bored with the subject.

What he failed to say, and may fail to understand, is that the state and national governments are moving toward the acceptance of a new and radical definition of marriage at the insistence of a radical group that has shown itself to be not only undemocratic but also violent at times. It is part of cultural Marxism, the original purpose of which was to prepare the ground for economic Marxism. Thus, ironically, while paying lip service to the free market, libertarians like Ron may well indirectly contribute to the malaise of the socialism they eschew.

Further, with regard to same-sex marriage, Ron ignores the fact that government has no right to or interest in changing standard time-honored definitions of words, not for any reason. Language has always been the domain of the people, and the changes in language, as well as its preservation, is supposed to be up to the people, not to a few whiners.

Ron Paul also seems to ignore the dangers of creeping Islam. Now, assuming Paul is not part of the elites that want to import hordes of Muslims to our shores, that may be a moot point. But can’t he identify what common sense tells us?

His idea that Middle Eastern dictators like Ahmadinejad deserve our “friendship” (not mentioned in the interview) could also be a problem. Militarily, Reagan cost America fewer lives than the presidents who came after him, and not because he made nice to the enemy but because he scared the bejeebers out of them.

Ron’s position on abortion has also been shown wanting by one of our contributors earlier today, who says that under the 14th Amendment, the executive has the duty to protect the Constitutional right to life of every citizen — born or unborn. If this position is derived from the Constitution, then it is not a matter of states’ rights, as Ron so blithely insists.

This is a real watershed issue because it separates godliness from wickedness. You don’t even have to know the Bible to understand that.

Those are some of the blemishes.

On the other hand, if Ron is willing and able to make good his campaign promises, he may turn out to be the best enemy the Fed and their cronies could ever have, and hence, no doubt the best friend we the people could have in combating a runaway Congress bent on spending us into oblivion. He could perhaps turn out to be another Andy Jackson and send the bankers packing. But yet, critics point out that, in his tenure in Congress, Ron has not made significant inroads in this direction. So is he just a talker, like Obama? Or will he, at age 76, have enough energy, mental clarity or will left to roll up both sleeves and fight as promised?

No doubt the US would still be standing after a Ron Paul presidency.

No doubt most people would still be using seat belts.

No doubt most marriages would be traditional ones.

Ron’s ideals are not all my ideals. But then a $15 or 16 trillion debt is even further from my ideal because it is a direct threat to our existence. And it is the reality we live with.

Evidence that the difference between libertarianism and liberalism is paper thin:

Leave a Reply

Sorry, Don, There is no “on the other hand”! The lesser of two evils is still evil as the late Terry Anderson always reminded us. If you compromise with your positions just to get the Marxist out of office, what about the anarchist you’ll have put in there? Of course, no one in his/her right mind believes that Ron Paul will get the nomination, so much of this is moot. Some of the base will vote for him in the primaries but nationally, he’ll only do well in NH and a few other states. I don’t believe he’ll win ANY… Read more »

I am surprised by the shortage of comments here. But maybe I shouldn’t be.
The last time I ran an article that was only a little critical of Ron Paul, I was inundated by responses supporting Ron Paul, many of them angry.
Perhaps the hardcore Paul supporters only know how to throw stones but can’t deal with facts and cogent arguments?
If so, they aren’t far from leftists.

People will differ with Ron Paul over this or that issue. Of course they will differ with every other candidate in the same fashion. The key and only question, however, is who among the candidates will reduce the size and power of the federal government so that it heads back to its constitutionally limited boundaries. Paul is the only choice here. The only one. The others want to increase federal power, most by leaps and bound sand a few by smaller steps. As to issues like insurance, you assume the state should continue to mandate it. Paul would say no… Read more »

I left the following response yesterday, but it never was posted. Here it is, again, in case there was some cyber-glitch: Don says, “…what he said on seat belt laws, narcotics laws and gay marriage made me cringe.” Well, Don you’re right on one of three. First, let’s take seat belt laws. Paul said, “Seat belt laws are bad because they rob the individual of freedom.” Don says, “Partly true.” No, Don it is 100%, UN-debatably true. All laws restricting behavior, good or bad, rob the individual of the freedom to engage in that behavior. It’s an inescapable fact. The… Read more »

Response to Levine’s “three reasons not to support Ron Paul: “1) He’s for unbridaled Amnesty for illegals” Levine you’re a liar. Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration: 1.Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals. 2.Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas. 3.No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10… Read more »

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=298533 Tom Tancredo writes: I served with Ron Paul in Congress for 10 years. He was a member of my Immigration Reform Caucus, and I consider him a friend. We didn’t see eye to eye on every issue, but he was generally an ally in the fight against illegal immigration. Unfortunately, it appears that Paul’s views on immigration have now shifted into the pro-amnesty camp. Last week, Rep. Paul released his latest book, “Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom.” One of those 50 issues is immigration, and Paul gives a more detailed explanation of his views in… Read more »

Trying to lump me in with a stereotype is indefensible. This has happened for years, directly associated with the “Star of David Strategy” (http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/?s=sds) to treat Ron Paul Supporters, in the 2008 convention/caucus process, with the Goebbels media strategy for Jews in the early 30s. “Nuts.” “Crazy.” “Ronulans” “Cult-like.” “insane!” “Paulbots” And then, with all the name-calling come the responses; Warmonger, Neo-con, Statist. National faux “conservative” press call Paul names to the exclusion of reason. They do it regularly without conscience. It strongly suggests they can’t actually debate him. Among conservatives I have long-time friends who are furious at the… Read more »

Doug Before I forget, hope you and yours have a most blessed CHRISTmas. I noticed you did not respond to my article “Outing Ron Paul.” My comment to Carol go for you too if you would care to weigh in. BTW: Ron Paul has been outed by his supporters as a closet voluntaryist / anarchist, not me. So, there really is no sense defending that any more, he has admitted he takes those positions and “likes voluntaryism.” Did you know that about him, that he was using the Constitution to hide behind? They planned on “dropping the anarchist bomb” on… Read more »